Rasmussen: Romney wins a 3-way race with Obama, Paul

posted at 2:01 pm on May 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier in this cycle, Republican fretted that Ron Paul could go rogue and run as an independent in the general election, which conventional wisdom held would be a disaster for the GOP. Paul has (mostly) insisted that he has no intention to make an independent general-election run, but maybe Republicans were too quick to worry. A new poll from Rasmussen among likely voters show that Romney would win in a three-way match, and Obama would have difficulty hitting 40% of the popular vote (via PJ Tatler):

Texas Congressman Ron Paul appears more interested in influencing the direction of the Republican Party than in running as an independent presidential candidate. But perhaps Democrats should be careful what they wish for: Even if Mitt Romney’s remaining GOP challenger should run as a third party candidate, new Rasmussen Reports surveying finds Romney the winner of a three-way race.

The latest national telephone survey shows that 25% of Likely U.S. Voters think Paul should run as a third party candidate. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree, but 13% more are not sure. …

Yet despite apparent Democratic hopes that a Paul candidacy might cut into Romney’s total, the likely Republican nominee is the winner of a three-way race if the election were held right now. Given that matchup, Romney earns 44% support to President Obama’s 39%. Paul runs a distant third with 13% of the vote. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and another two percent (2%) are undecided.

I doubt that Paul wants to launch an independent bid, too. He has almost no chance of victory, and such a decision would almost certainly damage the influence of his son Rand in the Republican Party. The motivations behind this Paul bid are likely to influence the future direction of the GOP, especially on fiscal matters, and to build the Paul organization so that Rand can take over and ride it to a presidential bid of his own.

Still, the Rasmussen results are intriguing. They tend to corroborate the notion that a third-party run of any significance damages the incumbent rather than the challenger, which is exactly what happened in 1968 (the incumbent party, anyway), 1980, and 1992. It worked out differently with Ross Perot’s second bid in 1996 for a number of reasons, probably more due to the resurgent economy and the weakness of the Republican ticket.

This poll did oversample Republicans over Democrats, however, with a D/R/I of 36/33/31. That’s in the ballpark of the 2010 turnout model (35/35/30), but a GOP advantage would be a little surprising (not impossible, though) in 2012. However, that doesn’t actually come too much into play in the internals. Paul would get 23% of independents in a 3-way race, but only 5% of Democrats and 11% of Republicans. More interesting is the fact that Romney gets 10% of Democrats in this poll, while Obama only gets 5% of Republicans. And while a gender gap does appear between Romney and Obama in this poll, Romney has a 22-point advantage among men in the three-way split over Obama (51/29) while Obama only has a nine-point advantage among women over Romney (47/38). That gender gap will be something to watch as more polls of likely voters follow.

More than a third of Democrats (34%) want Paul to run as an independent. They may want to carefully consider the Chinese proverb that warns to be careful when wishing for something, lest one get it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

If the reality were to come to pass, that Paul would run 3rd party, realize that a large fraction of the often youthful Paul supporters in that poll do not understand that Paul is big-time against big-govt.

How could a communist Occupier support Paul? O would train his guns on Paul’s “extreme” anti-govt, anti-welfare-state views. So Paul’s support among independents and Dems would crash, crater. O would win out.

It’s just words. I have yet to see a workable plan from any of these people.

I’ve been asking this question for months now: Does anyone have a better plan, one that actually has a chance of working? Love to hear it.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I feel your frustration. I’ve been asking why people should vote FOR Mittens, and I never get an answer.

As to your question, the answer depends on how you define “working” and whether you are focused on the short-term or long-term view.

IMHO, Politicians in either party are only really influenced by the voters that DON’T already vote for them. Therefore, as long as the conservative base continues to vote for the Republican nominee by default, the GOP will continue to nominate the absolutely worst possible Rinos.

If the conservatives truly stop compromising their values and start staying home in massive numbers, the GOP will either EVOLVE back into an actual opposition party, or it will die off and be replaced by a conservative third party. Which is what happened in Canada.

But that is obviously a long-term solution, and the price to pay is that liberal Democrats will probably win several future elections. But that happens when the GOP run Rinos anyway, so we might as well try. It will happen eventually, either way.

“If I could have a Romney loss and an Obama loss I’d take that option.”

angryed on May 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Sorry chump.

“I’ve said repeatedly I want Obama to win. Not in any type of closet.”

angryed on April 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Trafalgar on May 8, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Someone else took the time to track down some of angryed’s self-contradictory quotes. I myself was too busy lazy to do so.

Again, people, angryed is a schizophrenic left-wing troll. Rebut his/her talking points when he/she is in open left-wing mode, but I would advise otherwise ignoring angyred’s attention-seeking behavior.

It’s just words. I have yet to see a workable plan from any of these people.

I’ve been asking this question for months now: Does anyone have a better plan, one that actually has a chance of working? Love to hear it.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I feel your frustration. I’ve been asking why people should vote FOR Mittens, and I never get an answer.

As to your question, the answer depends on how you define “working” and whether you are focused on the short-term or long-term view.

IMHO, Politicians in either party are only really influenced by the voters that DON’T already vote for them. Therefore, as long as the conservative base continues to vote for the Republican nominee by default, the GOP will continue to nominate the absolutely worst possible Rinos.

If the conservatives truly stop compromising their values and start staying home in massive numbers, the GOP will either EVOLVE back into an actual opposition party, or it will die off and be replaced by a conservative third party. Which is what happened in Canada.

But that is obviously a long-term solution, and the price to pay is that liberal Democrats will probably win several future elections. But that happens when the GOP run Rinos anyway, so we might as well try. It will happen eventually, either way.

Buckshot Bill on May 8, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Thanks for the reply! This needed to be started the day after the 2008 election, but instead it seems that most conservatives (Republicans if you prefer) went into various factions rather than coming together. That’s why I listened and weighed the options of the “scorched earthers” wondering if it would be best to let things hit bottom and then work on the remains.

However, seeing how back Obama is and that what we thought might be the bottom might be even worse with another four years of Obama, I’m not sure if that risk can be taken. If whoever is the R nominee (looking like Romney now) wins, then that gives us another four years to work towards cleaning up the GOP or even starting a viable third party. Part of this could have been done in the last three years, but it seems people weren’t quite ready for that. Maybe they are now.

I may look like a Romney person, but believe me I am not. The last thing I want to do is defend him, but the alternative of Obama is just unimaginable.

I was sad when DeMint decided not to run and even more so when Palin didn’t Perry shot himself in the foot, which was a damn shame. In a year where the incumbent is this weak and the best that can be done is RP or MR? Yikes.

Maybe this is another lesson for conservatives and part of the process to a viable third party.

As for your question of why to vote for MR, he’s not Obama. That’s a flip answer, but he won’t sell out the country and its allies for cheap political expediency (we’ll transmit that Vlad) or give millions/billions to the Brotherhood. The other is the SCOTUS nominees. I doubt that Romney would nominate a slug like Kagan or a “wise Latina” like Sottomayer.

Believe me, I can think of about 50 people I’d rather vote for, but it’s not up to me and it’s too important to “waste” a vote.

That’s enough for me at this point – a placeholder – and hopefully more people will realize that another four years can’t be wasted like the last three.

He is the only one of the three that would end the pointless occupations and put up any meaningful resistance to the military-industrial lobbyists. Which is precisely why they and their unpaid minions wage no-holds-barred war on him. Because Obama’s antiwar support is empty words, and Romney has the spine of a jellyfish.

AngryEd is an Obama-voting internet troll. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s embarrassing to see so many conservative readers on here repeatedly engage with him and try to figure out where he’s coming from and what his plans are. He is playing you guys for fools, I’m sorry to say.

Trafalgar on May 8, 2012 at 4:06 PM
AngryEd is an Obama-voting internet troll. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s embarrassing to see so many conservative readers on here repeatedly engage with him and try to figure out where he’s coming from and what his plans are. He is playing you guys for fools, I’m sorry to say.

You really just killed your argument with the above paragraph. “Apparently okay” – you have no idea, but are making suppositions.

The fact is that he is a member of an organization that had racist doctrine prior to 1978. I would suggest that membership in such an organization strongly implies agreement with their stated doctrine.

“No record of him speaking out” – not everything is on record, right? You well could be right, but we don’t have proof.

You’re right. It’s possible that he did speak out against this policy. But there is no record of this so I can only assume that he was okay with this. Actually, as late as 2007, in an interview with Tim Russert, he refused to say that the church policy was wrong, so it isn’t like he has even condemned it ex post facto.

“I am NOT saying that MR was personally racist…” – so what are you saying? Why bring it up then? Are you saying that if I belong to the Catholic Church and a few priests are pedophiles and the Church (as we know) covered up and lied, does that mean that I am a pedophile who covers up crimes? Guilt by association?

I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, which you seem unwilling to do for Ron Paul. The Catholic Church analogy is a poor example. Pedophilia, or covering up pedophelia, was not Catholic doctrine. Denying blacks full membership was Mormon doctrine. And it is not “guilt by association”. It is actual membership in the racist organization.

RP had his name on those newsletters and printed them. Direct contact.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Ron Paul has actually condemned the content of those newsletters and it is clear to any fair-minded person that he did not actually author those newsletters.

Hey, is RP Catholic? We could also call him a pedophile and a coverer up of crimes because he belongs to a Church with a dubious background. We have no proof that he actually is one or whether he believes in it, but we have no record that he spoke up and he is a member.

No, he isn’t Catholic. I believe that he is a Baptist. The rest of this statement is a complete strawman because it doesn’t have any basis in fact. Everything that I wrote about Mitt Romney does.

YOU brought up the racism angle. I doubt that either one is actually racist. I actually care far more about their policies and their records. However, the angle that you took was with respect to the media having a field day with Ron Paul’s supposedly “racist” past so I took the time to point out how this will be an issue for Romney as well. Anytime you actually want to debate the candidates on their respective policy positions and records, just let me know.

That’s enough for me at this point – a placeholder – and hopefully more people will realize that another four years can’t be wasted like the last three.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Hopefully we’ll have a serious push for a 3rd party soon. Especially if Mittens loses. I know of several former Republican conservatives, who repeatedly swear they won’t vote GOP again. A genuine conservative 3rd party would get their votes. I don’t know how many more like them there are right now, but more than GOP officials seem to realize.

he 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

On average, the polls slightly overestimated Obama’s strength. The final polls showed the Democratic ahead by an average of 7.52 percentage points — 1.37 percentage points above his current 6.15-point popular vote lead. Seventeen of the 23 surveys overstated Obama’s final victory level, while four underestimated it. Only two — Rasmussen and Pew — were spot on.

Mid-term polling and state races are much, much harder to get right — too many polls, too many states, too many races. The “Republican soothsayer” was “spot on” the last time we had PRESIDENTIAL RACE polling. Spot on — the MOST accurate poll.

That’s enough for me at this point – a placeholder – and hopefully more people will realize that another four years can’t be wasted like the last three.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Hopefully we’ll have a serious push for a 3rd party soon. Especially if Mittens loses. I know of several former Republican conservatives, who repeatedly swear they won’t vote GOP again. A genuine conservative 3rd party would get their votes. I don’t know how many more like them there are right now, but more than GOP officials seem to realize.

Buckshot Bill on May 8, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I guess that would be the upside to a Romney loss is that a third party of a complete housecleaning in the GOP would be undertaken.

My point has always been in could be done under a Romney administration as well, so why let an unencumbered Obama run loose.

I’d also like to see the race card-playing Obama supporter AngryEd go, along with the attention-craving, disruptive poster whose name rhymes with the Proctor Bessla. The latter seems to have simmered down a lot after getting a reprimand, though.

Unfortunately it just seems like it could be hard to draw the line between bannable offenses and simply annoying behavior. IMO, the dishonest, character-playing trolling of people like AngryEd rises to the level of bannable offense. This comment section could be improved a lot with a moderator.

The funniest part is that some of the readers who shout the loudest about their own supposed “true” conservatism were also the ones most likely to find common cause with AngryEd and fall for his shtick, hook, line and sinker. These dolts would cheer on AngryEd and give him all kinds of “attaboys” whenever he would bash Romney and rail against Republicans. How embarrassing.

YOU brought up the racism angle. I doubt that either one is actually racist. I actually care far more about their policies and their records. However, the angle that you took was with respect to the media having a field day with Ron Paul’s supposedly “racist” past so I took the time to point out how this will be an issue for Romney as well. Anytime you actually want to debate the candidates on their respective policy positions and records, just let me know.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I brought up the idiocy of the media blathering about the dog as a counterpoint to you bringing up something that was in place 30+ years ago as some kind of point we should all care about. RP’s crap was a lot more recent when he should have known better. The 70s were a long time ago and things have changed, just as they have in a lot of institutions/religions. The fact that you find some kind of equivalency there is baffling and, well, picking the nit rather thin.

How about “they both suck, but Romney sucks marginally less” as a policy positions/records discussion, as that’s about as in depth a conversation I want to get into with you. I don’t mind wasting time, but picking nits to death is not something I really enjoy and that’s all I see here.

We should change our views and actions because the press might do something with it? Is that what you are saying now?

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Not at all what I was saying. (Romney does not represent my views or actions in any event.) The fact that the Left making a big deal out of his Mormon-ness was completely and utterly foreseeable changes nothing. It just made him a slightly weaker candidate than had he been mainline Protestant, just as having two divorces under his belt made Newt a slightly weaker candidate than if he’d had none. Some of us attempted to point out the problem with the Mitt “electability/inevitablility” model, in that it seriously underpedaled the challenges Mitt would face, but that’s really neither here nor there.

It’s just words. I have yet to see a workable plan from any of these people.

I’ve been asking this question for months now: Does anyone have a better plan, one that actually has a chance of working?Love to hear it.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM

The bolded statement contradicts the italicized statement, unless the latter was sarcastic.

A plan that would disrupt the workings of the system is fairly simple: deny the GOP votes, en masse. Vote third party, vote write-in, or don’t vote. Show the Republicans that their statism is unwelcome, but that the Democrat’s statism is not to our taste, either. If this requires the formation of a third party because the GOP refuses to abandon its wishes for becoming the ultimate “moderate” party, so be it. If the GOP hears the echo of empty ballot boxes and gets their act in line, awesome.

Let me ask you: why are you so willing to go along with a plan that seems bound and determined to further our situation, rather than remedy it? Why is everyone so upset when people point out that the situation sucks, and we should be taking action to demonstrate our dissatisfaction?

Answer: lots and lots of Republicans would vote for anyone, even another socialist, just to get the current socialist out of office. Fear doesn’t lead to patriotism, it leads to desperation. Now, here we are, waiting to put Bush back in office, and to go from criminal spending to criminal spending with a discount.

Fact is, nothing kept a DeMint or a Palin from running in the GOP, that was their own personal decision.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 4:23 PM

That’s not at all true. Both of those people were under tremendous pressure not to run, as were several others including Daniels, Ryan and Christie. Romney intended to be the only “reasonable” person in the field and the party helped him with that by pressuring other competent candidates to stay out. Only people who the party couldn’t pressure stayed in, including Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum and Paul. Everybody would probably have been willing to coalesce behind Perry had he not flamed out, but pain pills are a heckuva drug and all that.

I brought up the idiocy of the media blathering about the dog as a counterpoint to you bringing up something that was in place 30+ years ago as some kind of point we should all care about.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 4:49 PM

No. You actually accused Ron Paul of being a racist prior to bringing up Mitt Romney’s dog.

Enabler? You go P-off. I have yet to hear a better solution from you fist wavers.

All you are doing is enabling another four years of Obama. Where were you when the opportunity to get a “real” conservative in happened? Off sucking your thumb? Or babbling about “electability”?

Or were you reading the racist crap published by some weird old man who has no clue on foreign policy?
Pffffft.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM

If you think that Romney will be given a pass on this by the MSM, you are delusional. The fact that he STILL cannot bring himself to denounce this doctrine should give you pause since you care so much about racism. But you really don’t care, do you? You just want to use the racism charge to bash Paul with because you can’t defend Romney and you are desparate to rationalize your support of the least conservative Republican while the most conservative Republican is still running.

How about “they both suck, but Romney sucks marginally less” as a policy positions/records discussion, as that’s about as in depth a conversation I want to get into with you. I don’t mind wasting time, but picking nits to death is not something I really enjoy and that’s all I see here.

The only position that you seem to care about is foreign policy. Do you think that he has a better record/position than Ron Paul on ANY other domestic issue? If so, I’m interested to hear your take on their respective domestic policy positions. For instance, do you agree with Romney that cutting $1 Trillion from the budget would damage the economy? Or do you agree that we should cut $1 Trillion? Do you agree with Mitt Romney in his support of TARP and stimulus and his defense of socialized medicine in MA?

No surprise here. Libertarians are basically liberals who hate social insurance programs. They both worship at the drugs, sexual promiscuity, and anti-war altar of 1960s hippies.

Stoic Patriot on May 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I disagree strongly with this. I’m a conservative, but I must defend libertarians on this.

Read John Stossel’s new book: “No THey Can’t, Why Gov’t Fails and Individuals Succeed” and tell me libertarians are anywhere close to liberals.

Stossel lays out the case for the free market and for why the gov’t is terrible at pretty much everything it does. I disagree with Stossel on defense, but he’s a strong ally for limited gov’t and capitalism.

The only position that you seem to care about is foreign policy. Do you think that he has a better record/position than Ron Paul on ANY other domestic issue? If so, I’m interested to hear your take on their respective domestic policy positions. For instance, do you agree with Romney that cutting $1 Trillion from the budget would damage the economy? Or do you agree that we should cut $1 Trillion? Do you agree with Mitt Romney in his support of TARP and stimulus and his defense of socialized medicine in MA?

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM

No Romney is anywhere close to Paul in terms of domestic/economic policy. Paul would be great if he wasn’t allowed to be Commander In Chief.

He’s a kook and nutjob who blames America first. He’s against harsh interrogations and would do nothing to stop terrorist threats. Paul is NOT a conservative, he’s a libertarian.

He also has no shot at the nomination. So unless you want the Marxist to have another 4 years, suck it up and vote Romney!!

You’re a Levin fan alright. If all you care about is a continuation of our foreign policy, why don’t you just go ahead and vote for Obama? Obama has essentially continued Bush’s foreign policy.

There ain’t much daylight between Obama and Romney on foreign or domestic policy. Ron Paul would offer a true choice.

I’m sorry to see that domestic policy is such a low priority for you.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Really, I must’ve missed the part in the GOP debates of Romney talking about fairness and spreading the wealth???

I’m sorry you’re too stupid that you can’t tell the difference between a radical Marxist and an Establishment Republican.

Obama has continued Bush’s foreign policy? So giving civilian trials is part of Bush’s foreign policy? Having the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House would be the Bush Policy? Declaring the War on Terror as being over?? Bowing to dictators??

ron paul’s fiscal policy would be heaven on earth…for about two weeks until iran nuked us.

Mitch Rapp on May 8, 2012 at 5:30 PM

How can Iran nuke us with a nuke they don’t have and can’t deliver here? Furthermore, if Ron Paul were President we’d not be the THREAT we are right now FOR IRAN.

You have it completely bass-ackward. Ron Paul would change the entire dynamic of our relationships with these so-called evil nations in a way that would encourage more friendship and less war mongering.

As usual you mere conservatives get it completely wrong on foreign policy. Your isolationist and war mongering foreign policy has completely failed us as a nation. It’s time we try it a vastly different way.

Assuming for the moment…Ron Paul runs 3rd party. The consequences for Rand all depend on if Romney wins, right?

“We really can’t blame Rand, he was just supporting his dad,” will be the refrain if Mitt wins.

But should Romney lose, forget about it. Rand Paul is done as a politician in the GOP. He will be primaried, and then third-partied (if necessary) in Kentucky. And he’ll be sitting through meetings on the sub-committee on underwater basket weaving until 2016.

How can Iran nuke us with a nuke they don’t have and can’t deliver here? Furthermore, if Ron Paul were President we’d not be the THREAT we are right now FOR IRAN.

You have it completely bass-ackward. Ron Paul would change the entire dynamic of our relationships with these so-called evil nations in a way that would encourage more friendship and less war mongering.

As usual you mere conservatives get it completely wrong on foreign policy. Your isolationist and war mongering foreign policy has completely failed us as a nation. It’s time we try it a vastly different way.

Maybe next time you should do a “little research”?

fatlibertarianinokc on May 8, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Wow, you really think sitting down and having these poor misguided terrorists on Dr Phil to talk about their feeling is gonna make them like us??

You’re ignorant to history. Evil exists and there’s nothing we can do to prevent it. All we can do is take the fight to them instead of burying our heads in the sand.

Iran can’t hit us with a nuke? Just like that little terrorist group couldn’t do any damage to us right?? How about they deliver weapons to terrorists or smuggle it in through our porous border and detonate a nuke on our soil?

But according to Paulbots like you we must’ve done something to provoke it!!! Sickening, you clowns are actually to the left of Maobama on foreign policy!!

You are aware that Romney supported TARP, stimulus, and socialized medicine, right? He just said that he would oppose cutting $1 Trillion from the federal budget. Those are all pretty big domestic issues, right?

Obama has continued Bush’s foreign policy? So giving civilian trials is part of Bush’s foreign policy? Having the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House would be the Bush Policy? Declaring the War on Terror as being over?? Bowing to dictators??

You define “foreign policy” on BS like this? “Bowing to dictators”? I mean, I agree that that sucks and that he shouldn’t do that, but how does Romney fundamentally change our foreign policy? Is he going to bomb Iran? Maybe you think that he will, but I wouldn’t count on it. Remember, if Romney is anything, he is a politician. There is very little support for a preemptive attack on Iran. He won’t do that if he thinks it will hurt his poll numbers. Kind of like Obama in that regard.

I’m not about to defend Obama’s foreign policy, either. But beyond the cosmetic differences that you mentioned, what the hell is the difference? They both support the NDAA and CISPA and the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay…there are a lot more similarities than you are willing to admit.

But again, why is domestic policy less of an issue than foreign policy? Do you think Ron Paul would just invite the Red Chinese in and not defend this country? That’s just silly.

You have it completely bass-ackward. Ron Paul would change the entire dynamic of our relationships with these so-called evil nations in a way that would encourage more friendship and less war mongering.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 8, 2012 at 5:37 PM

yeah if we just tell all these dirty neocons to stfu and pull all of our troops out of the ME, im sure ahmadinejad will want to hold hands and sing cum bah yah. if we cut ties with israel maybe hell even let us have sex with is favorite goat. why, he may even remove the passages from the koran that say to kill all the infidels

but seriously. Iran poses no existential threat to the US right now, and wouldn’t after 4-8 years of a Paul presidency.

BocaJuniors on May 8, 2012 at 5:45 PM

right. becasue if there is one thing we know with absolute certainty it is that iran doesn’t have the petrol dollars to buy a suitcase nuke and even if they did, there isn’t a shady russian arms dealer on earth who dream of selling them one

You define “foreign policy” on BS like this? “Bowing to dictators”? I mean, I agree that that sucks and that he shouldn’t do that, but how does Romney fundamentally change our foreign policy? Is he going to bomb Iran? Maybe you think that he will, but I wouldn’t count on it. Remember, if Romney is anything, he is a politician. There is very little support for a preemptive attack on Iran. He won’t do that if he thinks it will hurt his poll numbers. Kind of like Obama in that regard.

I’m not about to defend Obama’s foreign policy, either. But beyond the cosmetic differences that you mentioned, what the hell is the difference? They both support the NDAA and CISPA and the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay…there are a lot more similarities than you are willing to admit.

But again, why is domestic policy less of an issue than foreign policy? Do you think Ron Paul would just invite the Red Chinese in and not defend this country? That’s just silly.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Obama would make massive cuts to defense. Only RuPaul would make more cuts which would severly impair our ability to defend ourselves. Obama has already stopped enhanced interrogations – that HAVE stopped terrorist attacks and were the main reason we got bin laden. Of course RuPaul admitted he wouldn’t have killed bin laden!

Obama went into Libya and Egypt, those were supposedly to help the will of the people but really did not benefit the US. On the contrary, going into Iraq and Afghanistan had our direct interests involved.

Obama will push amnesty, we’ll get obamacare for life, on overreaching executive branch with countless more czars (like Cass Sunstein who will regulate the internet like never before) more stimulus bills… basically capitalist will be dead.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down Obamacare or only part of it, we’d be stuck with it for life under Maobama. Yes, Romney has Romneycare, but it was a state solution, not federal. It was supported by the people of MA, unlike Obamacare being forced on us. Romney has stated multiple times that he will repeal Obamacare.

The answer is to get as many conservatives as possible in the House and Senate so they can send repeal bills for Romney to sign.

Romney is a not a Marxist like Maobama, to claim otherwise is pure ignorance.

but seriously. Iran poses no existential threat to the US right now, and wouldn’t after 4-8 years of a Paul presidency.

BocaJuniors on May 8, 2012 at 5:45 PM

right. becasue if there is one thing we know with absolute certainty it is that iran doesn’t have the petrol dollars to buy a suitcase nuke and even if they did, there isn’t a shady russian arms dealer on earth who dream of selling them one

Mitch Rapp on May 8, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Agreed, let’s bomb and/or invade every country that has money to buy nukes from “a shady russian arms dealer”.

More seriously, two quick points.

First, learn what existential threat means.

Second, Pakistan, the country that was f***ing hiding Osama bin Laden from us, has tons of nukes. Are they above or below Iran on your list of “Places We Should Bomb During Romney’s Presidency”?

You’re ignorant to history. Evil exists and there’s nothing we can do to prevent it. All we can do is take the fight to them instead of burying our heads in the sand.

Iran can’t hit us with a nuke? Just like that little terrorist group couldn’t do any damage to us right?? How about they deliver weapons to terrorists or smuggle it in through our porous border and detonate a nuke on our soil?

But according to Paulbots like you we must’ve done something to provoke it!!! Sickening, you clowns are actually to the left of Maobama on foreign policy!!

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Irony.

I guess the Founding Fathers were to the left of Obama as well. The majority of our existence has been that of non-interventionism, but look at you championing the foreign policy of progressives!

It’s just words. I have yet to see a workable plan from any of these people.

I’ve been asking this question for months now: Does anyone have a better plan, one that actually has a chance of working? Love to hear it.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM

The bolded statement contradicts the italicized statement, unless the latter was sarcastic.

A plan that would disrupt the workings of the system is fairly simple: deny the GOP votes, en masse. Vote third party, vote write-in, or don’t vote. Show the Republicans that their statism is unwelcome, but that the Democrat’s statism is not to our taste, either. If this requires the formation of a third party because the GOP refuses to abandon its wishes for becoming the ultimate “moderate” party, so be it. If the GOP hears the echo of empty ballot boxes and gets their act in line, awesome.

Let me ask you: why are you so willing to go along with a plan that seems bound and determined to further our situation, rather than remedy it? Why is everyone so upset when people point out that the situation sucks, and we should be taking action to demonstrate our dissatisfaction?

Answer: lots and lots of Republicans would vote for anyone, even another socialist, just to get the current socialist out of office. Fear doesn’t lead to patriotism, it leads to desperation. Now, here we are, waiting to put Bush back in office, and to go from criminal spending to criminal spending with a discount.

MadisonConservative on May 8, 2012 at 4:56 PM

As my mammy would be wont to say about your plan:

Cut your nose to spite your face.

Sure, we could all stay home or go have a beer and not vote, but would would that resolve? Another four years of Obama and the status quo upheld plus more. You think the establishment cares? They’ve already feathered their beds. They’ll just laugh and say you’ll beg for us after year two of Obama. And they’re right.

Five months away from the election is not the time to rebel.

As I have said *many* times, the time to rebel was the day Obama was elected. Nothing was done. The TEA Party was a great start and it’s still around, but not to the level to get rid of the entrenched “statism” (to use your term).

We have yet another opportunity to work towards a housecleaning and/or viable third party. I’m asking why not do it before the Middle East blows up and it’s 1931 again economically?

You think that maintaining the status quo ourwardly and infiltrating and changing from within is “furthering our situation” just tells me that you haven’t thought it out. This doesn’t happen in a vacuum and would you rather have Obama or Romney (or whoever the “statist” of the day is) in power during this changing from within/third party?

Agreed, let’s bomb and/or invade every country that has money to buy nukes from “a shady russian arms dealer”.

I’m not on board with that. My concern is limited to countries who have explicitly stated they would like to wipe the US off the map. by the way, no one said anything about bombing anyone. the topic was ron paul’s apathy towards iran’s nuclear ambitions.

First, learn what existential threat means.

i’ll look it up right after you look up straw argument

Second, Pakistan, the country that was f***ing hiding Osama bin Laden from us, has tons of nukes. Are they above or below Iran on your list of “Places We Should Bomb During Romney’s Presidency”?

BocaJuniors on May 8, 2012 at 6:09 PM

below for the time being. should their president express the desire to wipe us off the map, i reserve the right to move them to the top of the list

I was about to raise the same point. These guys get their foreign policy from Vince Flynn novels (hint: Those are fiction). I would throw North Korea in there as well. They actually have nuclear weapons and are working on long-range missiles. They are more of an existential threat than Iran. Why shouldn’t we bomb them as well?

I was about to raise the same point. These guys get their foreign policy from Vince Flynn novels (hint: Those are fiction). I would throw North Korea in there as well. They actually have nuclear weapons and are working on long-range missiles. They are more of an existential threat than Iran. Why shouldn’t we bomb them as well?

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I suggest you read a few Vince Flynn novels, you might learn something and stop being such a wimp.

Better than hanging out a Lew Rockwell sites.

Look at Hitler, the Soviet Union, and now IslamoFascists. You can’t offer these thugs friendship. They want to kill us. Either we kill them first or they’ll get us. It’s that simple.

If RuPaul got his way he’d cut defense so much we may not even have enough missile defense to stop North Korea missiles. If they keep pushing it with sending out missiles, we may have to take action against them.

let’s bomb and/or invade every country that has money to buy nukes from “a shady russian arms dealer”.

there is a difference between straw arguments that are clearly meant to be humorous/sarcastic and those that aren’t

and yeah, you’re right. because my nom de plume is based on a vince flynn character that means the whole of my foreign policy knowledge comes from his novels. now I feel like the naked empreror. curse you!

Sure, we could all stay home or go have a beer and not vote, but would would that resolve? Another four years of Obama and the status quo upheld plus more. You think the establishment cares? They’ve already feathered their beds. They’ll just laugh and say you’ll beg for us after year two of Obama. And they’re right.

Five months away from the election is not the time to rebel.

As I have said *many* times, the time to rebel was the day Obama was elected. Nothing was done. The TEA Party was a great start and it’s still around, but not to the level to get rid of the entrenched “statism” (to use your term).

We have yet another opportunity to work towards a housecleaning and/or viable third party. I’m asking why not do it before the Middle East blows up and it’s 1931 again economically?

You think that maintaining the status quo ourwardly and infiltrating and changing from within is “furthering our situation” just tells me that you haven’t thought it out. This doesn’t happen in a vacuum and would you rather have Obama or Romney (or whoever the “statist” of the day is) in power during this changing from within/third party?

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Well said. The primary is over. Politics is often the lesser of two evils. Romney is no Marxist, we must support him to preserve some semblance of the free market and limited gov’t.

As opposed to a nuclear China? Nuclear North Korea? Nuclear Pakistan??

The question isn’t whether the world is a better place… it’s is if the world is that much worse of a place with a nuclear Iran? And the answer is, given the above examples, not really.

The goal is to stop the spread of nukes to radical Islamonazi regimes.

Funny… I thought the goal was American security.

Unlike RuPaul and his nutjob supporters I don’t think Iran has the same right as us to nukes.

And unlike the Israel-first idealists, I recognize that a nation… any nation… has the right to whatever they can prevent another nation from stopping them from doing. Prepared to stop Iran from getting that nuke, are you? Take it to Congress. See how far you get before you are laughed out.

Iran can go F themselves, it’s about our best interests!

You say “our best interests”, but it sure smells like “Israel’s best interests”.

I’m not on board with that. My concern is limited to countries who have explicitly stated they would like to wipe the US off the map. by the way, no one said anything about bombing anyone. the topic was ron paul’s apathy towards iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Obama would make massive cuts to defense. Only RuPaul would make more cuts which would severly impair our ability to defend ourselves. Obama has already stopped enhanced interrogations – that HAVE stopped terrorist attacks and were the main reason we got bin laden. Of course RuPaul admitted he wouldn’t have killed bin laden!

The defense budget has grown under Obama. It won’t stop growing if he gets a second term. There are too many people on both sides of the aisle that benefit from the huge defense budget. The current defense budget has almost zero relationship to our ability to “defend ourselves.” We have a bigger budget than the next twenty militaries combined. That size defense budget is necessary to defend the entire world, not ourselves.

Obama went into Libya and Egypt, those were supposedly to help the will of the people but really did not benefit the US. On the contrary, going into Iraq and Afghanistan had our direct interests involved.

I agree with your first sentence. Too bad you can’t apply that logic to your second sentence, especially with respect to Iraq. Afghanistan is arguable since they were the base from which al-quaeda launched the 9/11 attacks.

Obama will push amnesty, we’ll get obamacare for life, on overreaching executive branch with countless more czars (like Cass Sunstein who will regulate the internet like never before) more stimulus bills… basically capitalist will be dead.

Do you actually believe that Romney is philosophically opposed to Obamacare when he created its mirror image in MA? The GOP is voting to regulate the internet already. Look up CISPA. I see no reason to believe that Romney would not continue the tradition of an overreaching executive branch. What has he said to convince you that he would be different than Obama in this regard? You are simply pointing out how bad Obama is without providing any evidence for why Romney would be different. I agree Obama is horrible. What evidence have you seen to convince you that Romney will be different? The fact that he has an “R” after his name? Sorry, I need to see more than that given his abysmal record.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down Obamacare or only part of it, we’d be stuck with it for life under Maobama. Yes, Romney has Romneycare, but it was a state solution, not federal. It was supported by the people of MA, unlike Obamacare being forced on us. Romney has stated multiple times that he will repeal Obamacare.

So you are for socialized medicine as long as its done at the state level? What a conservative stance! If you haven’t noticed, there is quite a gap between what Romney says and his record and he has been known to change his mind once or twice on some pretty major issues. What has he done for you to trust him so implicitly?

The answer is to get as many conservatives as possible in the House and Senate so they can send repeal bills for Romney to sign.

I agree but that doesn’t have anything to do with what we are discussing.

Romney is a not a Marxist like Maobama, to claim otherwise is pure ignorance.

He may not call himself a “Marxist”. But he is definitely a statist. How else do you explain his support of TARP, stimulus, Romneycare, the continuation of Social Security and other entitlements in their present form and his refusal to discuss serious cuts to the federal budget?

I suggest you read a few Vince Flynn novels, you might learn something and stop being such a wimp.

Better than hanging out a Lew Rockwell sites.

Look at Hitler, the Soviet Union, and now IslamoFascists. You can’t offer these thugs friendship. They want to kill us. Either we kill them first or they’ll get us. It’s that simple.

If RuPaul got his way he’d cut defense so much we may not even have enough missile defense to stop North Korea missiles. If they keep pushing it with sending out missiles, we may have to take action against them.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 6:24 PM

I guess I was a wimp when I volunteered to go to Iraq too? What unit were you in? I was a neocon like you too until I woke the hell up and realized that our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has almost zero correlation to the defense of this country.

And unlike the Israel-first idealists, I recognize that a nation… any nation… has the right to whatever they can prevent another nation from stopping them from doing. Prepared to stop Iran from getting that nuke, are you? Take it to Congress. See how far you get before you are laughed out.

Iran can go F themselves, it’s about our best interests!

You say “our best interests”, but it sure smells like “Israel’s best interests”.

JohnGalt23 on May 8, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Funny you Paulbots give Iran the benefit of the doubt. Sickening really.

I guess I was a wimp when I volunteered to go to Iraq too? What unit were you in? I was a neocon like you too until I woke the hell up and realized that our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has almost zero correlation to the defense of this country.

iwasbornwithit on May 8, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Well it looks like you came back as a wimp.

You think throwing that out that you served means everyone in this thread has to listen to you? That sounds like something a liberal would do. Like Cindy Sheehan saying we have to adopt her view of foreign policy b/c her son was killed (even though he wanted to go over there to fight as he reelisted multiple times).

But yeah going after the Taliban that provided training grounds for terrorists had nothing to do with our defense. Good point.

And I believe Iraq did have WMD’s. So did all intelligence agencies at the time.

The problem is our rules of engagemennt. We make our troops fight with their hands behind their backs. We don’t need to nation build, just go in and kick a$$ like we did in WWII.

And funny how we never had to go to war with them… contrary to your “Either we kill them first or they’ll get us. It’s that simple” ideas on foreign policy. And I use the word “ideas” rather loosely here.

And funny how we never had to go to war with them… contrary to your “Either we kill them first or they’ll get us. It’s that simple” ideas on foreign policy. And I use the word “ideas” rather loosely here.

JohnGalt23 on May 8, 2012 at 7:08 PM

You are like talking to a 5 year old.

China makes out great doing trade with us. THe Soviets feared their own destruction just as much as us (and I use the term us loosely here, you seem to be on the other side).

But yeah I’m sure there would never be a suitcase nuke to worry about from Iran. Just like all the recent bomb attacks that were stopped… nothing to worry about just bury your head in the sand and try to be nicer to the terrrorists b/c it’s always our fault!!

China makes out great doing trade with us. THe Soviets feared their own destruction just as much as us (and I use the term us loosely here, you seem to be on the other side).

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 7:22 PM

The memory is short with this one. Probably that Temple University level education.

The purveyors of fear on the Right, when China was developing nuclear weapons, claimed they were an irrational power. Said coexistence/containment would not work with them.

And here we stand, with KFC in Shanghai.

We’ve seen the likes of Chicken Little Levin before, claiming that Russian, or Chinese nuclear weapons were destined to fall on US cities, because the rules of nuclear diplomacy simply didn’t apply to them. Now the lyrics contain Iran, but the tune remains the same.

But yeah I’m sure there would never be a suitcase nuke to worry about from Iran. Just like all the recent bomb attacks that were stopped… nothing to worry about just bury your head in the sand and try to be nicer to the terrrorists b/c it’s always our fault!!

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Clearly, someone has trouble distinguishing between conventional bombing attempts (which he conveniently fails to list), and obtaining and detonating a nuclear weapon.

I highly doubt it. In a hypothetical, “synthetic” matchup, maybe, but what about voter mobilization – Romney will need the Ron Paul people to campaign for him. A Ron Paul candidacy would ruin Romney’s last chance of a unified party, which is what he really needs to win.

Also, Democrats have not been paying attention to Paul, once they do, they’ll have a pretty easy job of scaring democratic-leaning independents from voting for him. Much more difficult for Romney to do the same with more conservative voters, who don’t like him in the first place.

I don’t know what Paul is going to do, but if he runs as an independent, democrats will be celebrating.

By the way, Ron Paul makes me very wary of Rand Paul. He could be just like his father in disguise. As soon as Ron Paul said that Pres. Bush should be brought up for war crimes, I have ZERO respect for him. As far as I am concerned, that goes for his son as well.

Likewise, any conservative who doesn’t vote in November is supporting Obama.

We WILL beat Obama by electing Romney. Republicans and all kinds of conservative voters have already almost entirely united being Mitt Romney. Mitt will also win a large chunk of voters who went for Obama in 2008.

President Mitt Romney will be an excellent president just when we need him most. I believe the Romney presidency will be one of the most consequential and historic (in a good way) in a long time. Americans have reason to be optimistic.

When the battle is on and the stakes are highest, Ron Paul always comes out against the more conservative side. (See the Bush years, Paul’s comments on Reagan, his attacks against Santorum and Bachmann while letting Romney slide, etc.)

Now that the battle is Romney vs. Obama, Paul will do nothing to help the more conservative camp, in this case, ironically, Romney. Paul’s scant history in politics proves he will only damage (if he can) the combatant from the right.

And we should all have realized by now that Paul’s supporters tend to come from the more liberal part of the political spectrum.

When the battle is on and the stakes are highest, Ron Paul always comes out against the more conservative side. (See the Bush years, Paul’s comments on Reagan, his attacks against Santorum and Bachmann while letting Romney slide, etc.)

Now that the battle is Romney vs. Obama, Paul will do nothing to help the more conservative camp, in this case, ironically, Romney. Paul’s scant history in politics proves he will only damage (if he can) the combatant from the right.

And we should all have realized by now that Paul’s supporters tend to come from the more liberal part of the political spectrum.

shinty on May 9, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Um, Paul is the more conservative camp. The battle is not Romney vs. Obama.